He got what he deserved. People are always only thinking about themselves and that they are the only ones on the road. They don't realize how many people they put in danger with their driving. And then to have your own child in the car and still drive like an idiot, that's what you get. As a parent, you are supposed to set the example for them to follow, he was certainly setting a great one.
2006-11-14 13:31:56
·
answer #1
·
answered by Sheila V 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
1
2016-06-10 22:28:05
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I am a mother of 4 and I agree with this, I think it should happen more often, this was not jsut a few miles over the speed limit, this was guaranteed death if they wrecked. I give that cop a thumbs up on this as he could have saved that childs life, I also think drunk driving with a child in the car should be child abuse and any kind of wreckless act. I hope more states follow suit with this. There would be a lot less child fatalities around due to negligent driving.
2006-11-14 13:37:39
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
I'm not bothered by the charge. If you're going 103 mph like that guy and you have your kid in the back you should be charged with something other than just speeding/reckless driving. It makes sense but I wish they'd clean up the law a bit. They should pick a speed and then charge everyone with that crime if there's a child in the back. Not just random people here and there. Maybe 'child endangerment' or 'risk of injury to minor' would be better. It may not stop people from speeding or drinking and driving but it might make them think twice before they put their kid in the car.
My father used to speed and drive drunk with me in the car. I was terrified but I had no choice. There was no seat belt law back then either so we never used them. He was putting my life in danger. A law like that may have kept him from doing it as often.
2006-11-14 20:26:27
·
answer #4
·
answered by Pico 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Child abuse is more than just hitting the kid. Especially since the son smelled of alcohal too I'd say that they made the right decision.
If nothing else, they can get him for child endangerment... but what I don't understand is why they don't also charge him with attempted assult with a deadly weapon (driving that fast, especially in a work zone).
Either way this guy needs more than just a fine, he should be doing jail time.
And what kid can fall asleep numerous times when there's all the excitement of getting pulled over? Something's fishy.
2006-11-14 13:17:36
·
answer #5
·
answered by Amanda L 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
Up here in the Northeast you can get arrested for Child Abuse for taking away their Ipod.
At least in this article there is a real element of danger.
Dad can probably get it reduced in an appeal to just reckless driving in a construction zone.
2006-11-14 13:15:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by Action 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Amazing, but I guess the Florida State Law can call the shots on that.
If the driver was putting the boy's life in danger, that's a no no.
His fine must've been really really expensive cuz of speeding through a construction site with workers present.
2006-11-14 13:15:00
·
answer #7
·
answered by Cuddly Lez 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't know what the speed limit is in Florida, but let's say it was 70 for sake of argument. He was going OVER 30MPH ABOVE IT. And that is WHEN he was clocked. It might have been more than that. So yes, this was not just speeding. He WAS putting his child's life in real danger. I agree with the charges.
2006-11-14 13:23:35
·
answer #8
·
answered by clueless_nerd 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
it is awful there was also i guy in bolivar mo that was running from the cops at a high rate of speed and ran stop signs then jumped out of a moving vehicle so it could run into a barn with a 4 year old in the vehicle
2006-11-14 14:03:31
·
answer #9
·
answered by cowboy4lifexxxsangel 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
He wasn't going 5 or 10 over. He was going 50 over the speed limit. He could have easily killed his son. If someone can die hitting a tree going 35, imagine how bad it would be hitting something going 105.
So I say, yes I agree with the charge.
2006-11-14 13:19:28
·
answer #10
·
answered by Holly C 3
·
2⤊
1⤋